International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Deep Beam

2
Mr. V. D. Sabale 1 Miss. M. D. Borgave Prof. P. K Joshi.3
1
PG student Applied mechanics 2
PG student Applied mechanics Professor Applied mechanics
department department Padmabhooshan department Padmabhooshan
Govt. college of Engineering, Vasantraodada Patil Institute of Vasantraodada Patil Institute of
Saidapur, Technology, Technology,
Karad-India Budhgaon-India Budhgaon-India

Abstract There are several analytical tools available for
analyzing deep beams. Among all the available analytical
methods, finite element analysis (FEA) offers a better option.
In this paper the attempt has been made to study, the behavior of
deep beam of various span to depth ratio by ANSYS 13.0 under
two point loading of 50KN. The detailed analysis has been
carried out by using non-linear finite element method and design
of deep beam by using I.S 456-2000. The objectives of this study
are to observe deflection, cracking of deep beams subjected to
two point loading of 50KN. To study non- linear finite element
analysis of deep beam by using ANSYS having different L/D
ratio (1.5, 1.6, 1.71) and To study stress distribution of deep
beam.
Keywords deep beam, non-linear finite elemnt, ANSYS13.0,
RT
deflection.
I. INTRODUCTION
IJE
reduction in ultimate shear strength due to an increase in beam
size.
Beams with comparable large depths in relation to spans are
called deep beams. According to I.S: 456-2000, a simply
supported beam is classified as deep beam when the ratio of its
effective span L to overall depth D is less than 2.0 and
continuous beams are considered as deep beam when the ratio
L/D is less than 2.5. The effective span is defined as the
centre-to-centre distance between the supports or 1.15 times
the clear span whichever is less. The bending stress
distribution across any transverse section in deep beams
deviates appreciably from the straight line distribution
assumed in the elementary beam theory. Consequently section
which is plane before bending does not remain plain after
bending.

Reinforced concrete deep beam are very useful members
widely used in buildings, bridges and infrastructures. Deep
beams are the beam with a depth comparable with their span
length. To consider a beam as a deep beam, depth to span
length should be less than a certain value. This ratio is the
most frequently used parameter by researchers and engineers.
Generally, the simply supported beam with span to depth ratio
less than 2 is classified as deep beam and beam with span to
depth ratio exceeding 2 as shallow beams.
Reinforced concrete deep beams, in particular, show much
complicated response to any sort of loads subjected to such
members than conventional beams. It is well-known that deep
beams behave very differently from shallow beams as arch
action rather than flexure dominates the behavior, after
diagonal cracking has occurred. However, causes of size effect
in deep beams remain unresolved. This is mainly because
experimental data are relatively scarce on deep beams with
geometrically-varied beam sizes. A common practice in
experimental investigation of size effect of deep beams is to
keep the beam width constant while increasing the beam
height. It was implicitly assumed by researchers that the beam
width has a negligible effect on the structural behavior of deep
beams. However, this conclusion is largely drawn from test
results of beams having small height-to-thickness ratios. Size
effect in shallow reinforced concrete beams is represented by
II. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
The main objective of study is to analysis a deep beam of
various Length to span ratio by ANSYS 13.0 under two point
loading. The detailed analysis has been carried out using non-
linear finite element method & design using I.S 456-2000.
The objective of the investigation are listed below
1. To observe deflection, cracking of deep
beams subjected to two point loading.
2. To study non- linear finite element analysis
of deep beam by using ANSYS of beam
having different L/D ratio (1.5, 1.6, 1.71)
3. To study stress distribution (flexural, shear)
of deep beam.
III. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
The FEM is a numerical method for analyzing
structures and continua. Usually the problem addressed is too
complicated tobe solved satisfactorily by classical analytical
methods. The problem may concern stress analysis, heat
conduction, or any of several other areas. The finite element
procedure produces many simultaneous algebraic equations
which are generated and solved on digital computer. Results
are rarely exact. However, errors are decreased by processing
more equations, and results accurate enough for engineering
purposes are obtainable at reasonable cost.

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2134

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

The finite element analysis typically involves the following Step 5: check for bearing stresses
steps. Per. bearing stress= 0.45 fck. cl.34.4,IS 456-2000 pn 66
1. Divide the structure or continuum intofinite elements. = 0.45 x 20
Mesh generations programs called preprocessor, help = 9 N/mm2
the user in doing this work. Bearing stress at supports and at loading point
2. Formulate the properties of each element. In stress b= vu/ st
analysis, this means determining nodal loads Where
associated with all elements deformation states are vu= factored S.F.
allowed. S= width of support 60 mm
3. Assemble elements to obtain the finite element model t = thickness of beam.
of the structure. = 8.33 N/ mm2 < 0.45 fck..hence safe
4. Apply the known loads; nodal forces, and/or moment Provide bearing plate of 60 x 150 mm at support as well as
in stress analysis. loading point.
5. In stress analysis, specify how the structure is
Step 6: Calculation of bending moment
supported .this step involves setting several nodal
displacements into known values.
6. Solve the simultaneous linear algebraic equations a)Load due to self weight = 1.5 (b x D x 25 )
to determine nodal dof. = 1.5 ( 0.150 x 0.35 x 25 )
7. In stress analysis, calculate the element strains
from the nodal d.o.f. and the elelment displacement . = 1.968 KN/m
field interpolation, and finally stress from strains. b)Maximum Factored B.M. due to self weight = wl2/ 8
= 1.968 x 0.62/ 8
= 0.0885 KNm.
IV. PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION C) Maximum Factored B.M. due to two point loads
= 50 x 0.20 x 1.5
A. Data For Design Of Deep Beam: = 15 KNm
Following are the data chosen for design purpose: Total Factored B.M.(Mu) = 15 + 0.0085
Length L =700 mm, Effective depth d = 320mm, Depth D = 15.00885 KNm
RT
=350 mm, Width B = 150 mm, two point loading of 50 KN Step 7: Calculation of flexural reinforcement
shear span = 200 mm, Clear Cover = 30 mm. Ast = Mu / (0.87 x fyx z )
Use M20 and Fe 415. = 15.00885 x 106/ ( 0.87 x 415 x 260 )
Ast = 133.408 mm2
IJE

B. Design Procedure Of Deep Beam:I.S. 456-2000 Minimum reinforcement

Following are the procedure of design of deep beam: Ast min = ( 0.85x b x d ) / fy
Step 1: Calculation of effective span Ast min = ( 0.85 x 100 x 864 ) / 415
Ast min = 176.96 mm2 > As reqd.
This shall be taken as lesser of Hence provide Ast min Provide 2-10 mm at bottom after a
1) Center to center distance between supports = 600 mm clear cover of 30 mm
2) 1.15 times the clear distance between supports = 1.15 x 540 Zone (depth) of placement = 0.25D0.05L
=621 mm .cl.29.2,IS 456-2000,pn 51 = 0.25 x 350 0.05 x 600
Hence effective span l =600 mm. = 57.5 mm
Step 2: Check for deep beam action Tension steel can be placed in the zone of 57.5 mm above
cover.
l/ D = 600/ 350 Step 8: Calculation of development length
= 1.71< 2.00, hence beam behaves as For flexural steel
a deep beam. ..cl.29.1,IS 456-2000,pn 51 For 10 mm bar,
Step 3: Calculation of lever arm
z = 0.2 (l + 2D) - l/D is between 1 to 2. cl.29.2,IS 456- 2000

= 0.2 (600 + 2 x 350) = (10 x 0.87 x 230) / (4 x 1.2x 1.6)

z = 260 mm. = 566.40 mm
Step 4: Thickness of beam 0.8 = 0.8 x 566.40
1. It is controlled by two conditions to avoid buckling = 453.125 mm
failure Provide development length of 450 mm for 10 mm bar.
i) D/T ratio should be less than 25. Step 7: Check for shear:
ii) L/T ratio should be less than 50. No separate checking for shear is specified in I.S.456. It is
2. Thickness of beam =150mm. assumed that the arching action of the main tension steel & the
D/T= 350/150= < 25 hence ok web steel together with concrete will carry the shear. A deep
L/T = 700/150 < 50 hence ok beam complying with the requirements of Cl.29.2 and Cl.29.3
Adopt T= 150 mm. shall be deemed to satisfy the provisions for shear.

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2135

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

Step 8: Side Face reinforcement:

As per Clause 32.5 of I. S. 456: 2000, Page 62 and
63, all specifications require minimum amount of vertical steel
& horizontal steel in the form of U bars to be placed on both
faces of deep beams. They not only overcome the effects of
shrinkage & temperature but also act as shear reinforcement.
These specifications are-
1. Vertical steel shall be 0.15 % for Fe 250 & 0.12 %
for Fe 415. The bars shall not be more than 14 mm
diameter & spaced not more than 3 times the Fig.1 solid 65
thickness of the beams 450 mm.
2. diameter & spaced not more than 3 times the A Link180 element was used to model steel reinforcement [2].
thickness of the beams or 450 mm. This element is a 3D spar element and it has two nodes with
three degrees of freedom translations in the nodal x, y, and z
1.Vertical Steel Av = ( 0.12 / 100 ) x 150 x 350 directions. This element is capable of plastic deformation and
= 63mm2 element was shown in the Fig.2.
i.e. 63mm2 on each face.
Hence provide 9 two legged vertical stirrups of 6 mm diameter
bar at 150 mm c/c spacing.
2.Horizontal Steel Ah = ( 0.20 / 100 ) x 150 x 350
= 105 mm2
i.e.105 mm2 on each face.
Fig.2 link 180
Provide 2- 8 mm dia. horizontal stirrups at 200mm c/c. on
each face of the beam.
Real Element Real Real Real
TABLEI. REINFORCEMENT OF BEAM DEPTH 350MM &375MM Constan
ts Type constants constants constants
Sr. Details of
No Type of reinforcement Set for for for
RT
reinforcement
Rebar 1 Rebar 2 Rebar 3
1. Main Steel 2-10 mm ( fe 415 )
1 Solid 65 Material 0 0 0
2 Side face reinforcement Two legged 8 mm dia.
I. Vertical Steel stirrups @ 190 mm c/c no.
IJE

II. Horizontal Steel spacing (8 stirrups) V.R

2-8 mm dia. @ 200 mm
2 LINK 8 Area 78.5e-6 - -
c/c spacing.
(m2)
TABLE II. REINFORCEMENT OF BEAM DEPTH 400MM Initial 0 0 0
strain
Sr. Details of
Type of reinforcement 3 LINK 8 Area 50.24e-6 - -
No reinforcement (m2)
1. Main Steel 2-10 mm ( fe 415 ) Initial 0 0 0
2 Side face reinforcement Two legged 8 mm dia. strain
I. Vertical Steel stirrups @ 190 mm c/c
II. Horizontal Steel spacing (8 stirrups)
3-8 mm dia. @ 200 mm
c/c spacing. C.REAL CONSTANT
IV NON LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
A. Element type TABLE IV REAL CONSTANTS

TABLE III. ELEMENT TYPE FOR MODEL

D. Material properties
Sr.
No Material type element ANSYS13.0 The material properties defined in the model are given in
Table 4. For the reinforcing bars, the yield stress was obtained
1. Concrete Solid65 from the experimental test as fy = 432 MPa and the tangent
2 modulus as 847 MPa. The concrete cube compressive strength
Steel Reinforcement Link180
fck determined from the experimental result is 44.22 MPa,
A Solid65 element was used to model the concrete. 80% of which is used as the cylinder strength.The multilinear
This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at isotropic material uses the Von Mises failure criterion along
each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions.. A with the Willam and Warnke (1974) model to define the
schematic of the element was shown in Fig.1. failure of the concrete. Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the
concrete, and is the Poissons ratio. The characteristic
strength of the concrete considered was 25 N/mm2 and the
Poissons ratio was 0.3.

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2136

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

The multilinear isotropic stressstrain curve for the concrete

under compressive uniaxial loadingwas obtained using
equation (Macgregor 1992).
f = EC /1+(/0)2
where,
f = stress at any strain ,
= strain at stress f, fig3.Finite element model & meshing
0 = strain at the ultimate compressive strength
F.Meshing
D. Material properties To obtain good results from the Solid65 element, the
use of a rectangular mesh was recommended. Therefore, the
Materi Element Material Properties
al type mesh was set up such that square or rectangular elements were
model created. The meshing of the reinforcement was a special case
no compared to the volumes. No mesh of the reinforcement was
Multi linear Isotropic
Reference Strain Stress needed because individual elements were created in the
point modeling through the nodes created by the mesh of the
Point 1 0.00036 9.802 e6 N/mm2 concrete volume. The meshing and reinforcement
Point 2 0.00060 15.396 e6 N/mm2
configuration of the beam were shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4.
Point 3 0.00130 27.517 e6 N/mm2
Point 4 0.00190 32.103 e6 N/mm2
Point 5 0.00243 33.096 e6 N/mm2 G. Loading and Boundary Conditions
1 Solid 65
Displacement boundary conditions were needed to constraint
Concrete the model to get a unique solution. To ensure that the model
Shear transfer coeffients for open crack 0.2 acts the same way as the experimental beam boundary
RT
Shear transfer coeffients for closed crack 0.9
Uniaxial Tensile cracking Stress 3.78 e6 conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and
N/m2 where the supports and loading exist. The support was
Uniaxial crushing Stress 40 e6 modeled as a hinged support at both ends. Nodes on the plate
N/m2
IJE

Biaxial crushing Stress 0

were given constraint in all directions, applied as constant
Biaxial crushing Stress 0 values of zero. The loading and boundary conditions of the
Ambient Hydrostatic stress state 0 beam were shown in Fig.5
Biaxial crushing stress under ambient 0
hydrostatic stress state
uniaxial crushing stress under ambient 0
hydrostatic stress state
Stiffness multiplier for cracked tensile 0
condition
Steel
Linear Isotropic
EX 2.1X1011 N/m2
PRXY 0.3
2. Link8
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress 415X106N/m2
Tang Modulus 20X106 N/m2
Fig.5.Loading and Boundary conditions
E.Modelling
The model was 700 mm long with a cross section of H. Cracking Patterns
150 mm X 350 mm. The Finite Element beam model was
shown in Fig.3. The dimensions for the concrete volume were
shown in Table.3.

TABLE V. DIMENSIONS FOR CONCRETE

ANSYS Concrete(mm)
X1,X2,X-coordinates 0, 700
Y1,Y2,Y-coordinates 0, 350
Z1,Z2,Z-coordinates 0, 150

fig.6 Cracking

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2137

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

I. Deformed Shape

Fig.7 deflection of deep beam

Fig.7.Deformed Shape

V.RESULTS & DISSCUSION

Design of deep beams by using IS 456-2000 for different
Span to depth ratio the flexural steel required has nearly
Same for beams. The deflection cracking and stress
Distribution obtained after analysis is as below.

TABLE VI. RESULTS

RT
Fig.8 Stress distribution of deep beam

Depth 400mm 375mm 350mm VI.CONCLUSION

IJE

Span to depth 1.5 1.6 1.71 It is well recognized that the exact analysis of concrete
ratio
Flexural steel 85.06 95.862 102.689
deep beams is a complex problem. This ease can be
required in attributed to the use of computer programmes. In principle
ANSYS has the capacity of idealizing any continuum into
Flexural steel 157 157 157 finer mesh which in turn enhances the results obtained, and
provided in 2-10 2-10 2-10
with a high speed of operation. Starting from the literature
survey regarding analysis of deep beams the different
Load at first 172 164 153 parameters that affect properties of deep beam were
crack studied.After doing non linear finite element analysis of deep
Load at 303 289 267 beam using ANSYS 13.0 following points to be concluded.
failure
1. Deflection of beams increases as span to depth ratio
Deflection at 0.557 0.538 0.434
first crack,mm decreases.
2. As span to depth ratio goes on decreasing the load at
Deflection at 1.269 1.186 1.230
failure,mm failure goes decreasing.

REFERENCES
[1] Ding Dajun( 2002 ) Studies and Proposals for design of concrete deep
beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol-28, No-4, January-
March 2002 Page No 205-212.
[2] G. AppaRao and K.Kunal (2010) Studies on effect of size on strength
and ductility of RCdeep beams. Journal of Structural Engineering,
February-March 2010, Vol-36, No-6 Page No 393-400.
[3] Gerardo Aguilar, Adolfo B. Matamoros (2002) Experimental
Evaluation of Design Procedures for Shear Strength of Deep Reinforced
Concrete Beams. ACI Structural Journal, Vol-99, No-4, July- August
2002 Page No 539-548.
[4] Michael P. Collins, Evan C. Bentz (2008) Where is Shear
Reinforcement Required ? Review of Research Results and Design
Procedures. ACI Structural Journal Vol-105, September-October 2008,
Page No 590-599.

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2138

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014

[5] Varghese Advanced design of reinforced concrete structures, Prentice Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) Vol.3, Issue.1, Jan-
Hall Of India, New Delhi. Feb. 2013 pp-45-52 ISSN: 2249-6645.
[6] J.N. Reddy, An Introduction To Finite Element Method, Mcgraw-Hill [9] S. Ramamrutham, Design of Reinforced concrete structures.(DhanpatRai
International Edition, 1984. publishing company,2011).
[7] Varghese And Krishnamoorthy,(1966), Strength And Behavior Of Deep [10] AnandParande, P. Dhayalan, M. S. Karthikeyan, K. Kumar and N.
Reinforced Concrete Beams. Palaniswamy, Assessment of Structural Behavior of Non-corroded and
[8] Prof. S. S. Patil, A. N. Shaikh, Prof. Dr. B. R. Niranjan, Experimental Corroded RCC Beams Using Finite Element Method, Sensors &
and Analytical Study on Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam.International Transducers Journal, Vol. 96, Issue 9, pp.121-136(2008).
.

RT
IJE

IJERTV3IS052188 www.ijert.org 2139